Leica to relase a Sony A7 direct competitor?

[BJL]

Only if they intend to use the same EF or F-mount as their current SLRs.

If they want to create a new mount (EF-M won't work for full frame) then they're also starting from scratch.

Canon or Nikon wouldn't have to start from scratch if they introduce a new mirror-less 35mm format with a new, shallower lens mount: they could provide full backward compatibility with their huge SLR lens systems through an adaptor.   Especially since they both already have on-sensor PDAF, so should be able to get good AF performance with those SLR lenses.  It would still be important to have new mirrorless-only lenses at shorter focal lengths, where lenses designed specifically for a mirrorless system can have size and/or performance advantages.

[BJL]

Despite my skepticism in several previous posts, I should say that I do not yet see a case that the Leica SL system is doomed to failure by its price and such.  With prestigious low sales volume brands like Leica, it can be legitimately enough to have some advantages for some relatively small group users who also value those advantages enough to pay the extra.  (And the "Leica extra" is far less than the increment that millions of people pay for prestigious cars that give only slight practical advantages over more mainstream alternatives.) So for example:

- The Leica SL might offer a combination of lens optical quality and good AF speed not matched by any alternative – especially if matching optical quality involves using third party Zeiss lenses.

- The high resolution and reportedly high refresh rate of the EVF combined with 11fps might be a worthwhile advantage over the Sony 7 series, at least for a while.

- The sensor design might work better with adaptor mounted Leica M lenses than other mirrorless bodies do, through better handling of highly off-perpendicual incident light. (Leica hints at this.)


P. S. Since Leica M bodies are already mirrorless, and most DLSRs also have live view on rear-screens, we need a better name than "mirrorless" or "live view camera": I use "EVF system" because having an eye=level EVF for composition and interchangeable lenses is the positive distinguishing combination of features.  I also eschew "full frame" in favor of "35mm" for reasons that have already been thoroughly debated.

[telyt]

"Tourist product" Nikon 1 has a better AF system than this spanky new "Professional" Leica. Even the very first version.
Just saying. Carry on.

Nikon 1 also generates tourist snap image quality.

[telyt]

Get a faster computer. I routinely handle 200MP stitched panoramas with dozens of layers without trouble.

Do you process several hundred 200MP files at a time?

If you shoot action, no doubt you could use 25fps and a clean ISO 25600.

Stereotype.   

I don't need 11fps (I barely need 2fps) but need more than 24MP, regardless of the rest of the camera.

So it's not the right camera for you.  That doesn't mean it's not right for someone else's needs.

[telyt]

P. S. Since Leica M bodies are already mirrorless, and most DLSRs also have live view on rear-screens, we need a better name than "mirrorless" or "live view camera": I use "EVF system" because having an eye=level EVF for composition and interchangeable lenses is the positive distinguishing combination of features.  I also eschew "full frame" in favor of "35mm" for reasons that have already been thoroughly debated.

I agree, the common terminology can be misleading.

[MoreOrLess]

Only if they intend to use the same EF or F-mount as their current SLRs.

If they want to create a new mount (EF-M won't work for full frame) then they're also starting from scratch.

Interesting though that I think as you move up to FF saving flange distance becomes less of an advantage than getting rid of the prism/mirror/AF sensor. Just look at these new Leica SL lenses and the idea that saving a couple of cms of flange distance as important becomes a bit of a joke. You can shave quite a lot of height off of a body by going mirrorless with an EVF and I would not be at all supprized to see Canon or especially Nikon take that route. Even if they don't attempting lenses is obviously a option.

Canon, maybe. Sony could seriously hinder Nikon's attempts any time by refusing to sell them sensors. Although they could probably profit even more by just concentrating on developing better-and-better sensors (and on-sensor AF systems) and selling them to every other manufacturer. After all, electronics, not optical systems, is Sony's forte.

I doubt it, the Sony sensor division has just been spun off as a separate company and surely one of the main reasons for doing that is to make sure its making decisions for its own best interests not looking to help out another part of Sony. Really though even before that they seemed pretty independent, they let Nikon have the 36 MP sensor first and I suspect a lot of the reason the A7r II costs as much as it does is that they've had to pay a big premium to get the new 42 MP sensor first.

[synn]

Nikon 1 also generates tourist snap image quality.

Clearly.

[Chuck Fan]

I doubt it, the Sony sensor division has just been spun off as a separate company and surely one of the main reasons for doing that is to make sure its making decisions for its own best interests not looking to help out another part of Sony. Really though even before that they seemed pretty independent, they let Nikon have the 36 MP sensor first and I suspect a lot of the reason the A7r II costs as much as it does is that they've had to pay a big premium to get the new 42 MP sensor first.

It makes a lot more sense for Sony share holders to spin off sensor division off and have it sell sensors to the highest bidder.   Otherwise, if Sony's camera division isn't doing as well as it can, then the camera division will not only directly hurt the Sony share holders through its own lack luster performance, it would also be a millstone around the neck of the sensor division.   Sony shareholders will receive a double hit.

On the other hand, if Sony sensor division sells to the highest bidder, then Sony share holders would do well regardless of who is winning the camera wars.

 

[synn]

The idea that Sony will snub certain competitors over sensors is completely unfounded. That is not how business works. For example, Samsung and Apple are at each others throats in the courtroom, but Samsung sells memory to Apple cheaper than it does to its own mobile division because the order value is that much bigger. Same thing with Sony and Nikon . Besides, Nikon works with other fabricators such as Toshiba and Aptina.

The reason Sony spun off their sensor division has nothing to do with competitors. It is simply because of their corporate strategy, which is to make the divisions more accountable. The sensor division has been hitting it out of the park for a while now, but the overall numbers have been bogged down by underperforming divisions such as the mobile phone division. Conversely, the underperforming divisions were "rescued" each quarter by the jewels like the sensor division and the playstation division. Kaz finally had enough and ordered his minions to be accountable for themselves.

Nikon, Pentax, phase, Hasselblad etc. have nothing to worry about in terms of supply and never did.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

The points you make are very interesting. Your findings on EVF vs. OVF are quite interesting as you seem to be a master of manual focus. Thanks for sharing…

Personally, I am a camera on tripod and take my time shooter,  mostly or a happy snapper.

The Leica may be a great camera. For instance I like the idea of a 24-90 lens, 24-70 is a bit short on the long side for me.

Best regards
Erik

Not on the a7II.  24 MP is more than enough for me, bigger files will slow my computer too much if the S2 RAW files are any indication.

The SL's maximum frame rate is 11 frames per second with a deep buffer.  This suggests suitability for action.  I prefer the a7II's viewfinder over any DSLR viewfinder I've used - the accuracy and real-time exposure feedback are more than enough reason, and if I used AF the elimination of the AFMA bandaid-on-a-kludge would also be plenty of reason to avoid a DLSR.  The a7II viewfinder's first magnification step is too big.  I'd prefer the 3x/10x steps of the SL.

I thought the megapixel wars were over.  Or is the D4's 16 MP enough?

making assumptions?  You know what they say about that...

You can get the dual cards and less viewfinder lag along with 11 frames/sec on the SL.  AF performance remains to be seen (I'm not going to jump to any conclusions).

[telyt]

Clearly.

I rest my case.

[Theodoros]

I rest my case.

Me too... love the halo stripes in the sky, the colors (especially the ...yellow/greenish sunset) and the DR... fantastic! 

[BernardLanguillier]

Interesting though that I think as you move up to FF saving flange distance becomes less of an advantage than getting rid of the prism/mirror/AF sensor. Just look at these new Leica SL lenses and the idea that saving a couple of cms of flange distance as important becomes a bit of a joke. You can shave quite a lot of height off of a body by going mirrorless with an EVF and I would not be at all supprized to see Canon or especially Nikon take that route. Even if they don't attempting lenses is obviously a option.

Exactly. Besides, many people find the a7rII to be too small for proper operation (especially with gloves), especially when combined with larger/brighter lenses. Sony defined a strategy for their imaging division a few years back by looking at their core competences and strengths. They reached the conclusion that they were best at miniaturizing devices and applied this as is to cameras according to the "let's make the smallest possible camera with each sensor size" moto. This works wonders with the RX100 series, which delivers 5DMKIII level DR at base ISO in a pocketable camera.

But when you start to look at FF, one basically non compressible factor is lens size. We are given the impression of smaller size thanks to f4 zoom lenses, but lenses are in the end pretty much the same size at equal specs. The new Leica 24-90 is indeed a perfect example since it manages the feat to be heavier than the new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR (described by many in these very parts as a "monster lens belonging to a long gone era" when announced a few months ago)... while being one stop less bright on the long end. And this part is obviously essential for many applications.

Another factor is battery capacity. When factoring in the need to take 1,500 images over a period of 2-3 days without being able to charge (a frequent landscape application for stitchers), the D810 and a7rii end up weighting the same because of the number of additional batteries you must carry along when using the a7rII. I hear that the Leica is superior, but it is also much heavier.

So all in all, the main value of mirrorless cameras are lower cost for camera manufacturers (meaning more margins, not lower prices - the a7rII is significantly more expensive than a D810, even if it much cheaper than the new Leica), the EVF if you like that (with some real advantages and some real downsides), more silent operation and a few more aspects, that are basically non essential to most photographic applications.

Make no mistake, I welcome these new mirrorless developments and think that Nikon/Canon should get on board soon, but I still fail to get the mirrorless over excitement.

Cheers,
Bernard

[deanwork]

You guys do realize that Sony's chip making is primarily going into video, where they have always been, the primary cash making arena and it just trickled down into still photo because it was another use for it ?  Still cameras as such are quickly becoming a quaint relic of the late 20th century. The idea that Nikon is permanently attached to Sony is kind of silly. I expect to see Korean, Chinese and American chip making jump in very soon. Just because the Japanese invented reverse engineering doesn't mean it ends with them. Samsung as an example can do anything Sony can do now, if the market share is worth pursuing.

j

The idea that Sony will snub certain competitors over sensors is completely unfounded. That is not how business works. For example, Samsung and Apple are at each others throats in the courtroom, but Samsung sells memory to Apple cheaper than it does to its own mobile division because the order value is that much bigger. Same thing with Sony and Nikon . Besides, Nikon works with other fabricators such as Toshiba and Aptina.

The reason Sony spun off their sensor division has nothing to do with competitors. It is simply because of their corporate strategy, which is to make the divisions more accountable. The sensor division has been hitting it out of the park for a while now, but the overall numbers have been bogged down by underperforming divisions such as the mobile phone division. Conversely, the underperforming divisions were "rescued" each quarter by the jewels like the sensor division and the playstation division. Kaz finally had enough and ordered his minions to be accountable for themselves.

Nikon, Pentax, phase, Hasselblad etc. have nothing to worry about in terms of supply and never did.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

You fail to see the exitement for better IQ? The mirror only cause problems. It degrades performance in every category save one, faster focusing in dim light.

[BernardLanguillier]

You fail to see the exitement for better IQ? The mirror only cause problems. It degrades performance in every category save one, faster focusing in dim light.

That's a theoretical statement that I don't find is backed up by technological reality of today's DSLRs. I shoot my D810 handheld a lot these days and don't remember the last time I felt image sharpness was affected by mirror shake. And that is shooting with the best primes available and checking images at 100% on a 30 inch screen.

There is another category for which the mirror still has a huge advantage compared to the EVF IMHO, and that is pleasure of shooting. I spend enough time in front of screens that I don't enjoy looking at another - a low resolution one for that matter - when I photograph.

For me it is not a matter of theoretical principle. I have nothing against the principle of EVFs, but I don't find the EVF's I have tried (Sony and Olympus mainly) to be at the right level yet. The Leica one may change that, but then the SL has enough other issues that a perfect EVF won't be enough to convince me I fear.

Great if you find the current EVFs to meet your expectations, or if the other qualities of the current mirrorless cameras deliver enough value to compensate for the EVFs' remaining shortcomings. They don't cut it for me yet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BrianVS]

Viewfinder lag, battery draw, sensor heating, shutter-release lag. DSLR's have a lot of advantages over EVF's. Higher resolution EVF's means a lot more data to push through the camera. Battery draw and electronic noise. Mirrors in cameras are essentially passive optical devices, no power-draw, no viewfinder lag, and less shutter-lag than mirrorless. I'd like to know the operating temperature of a sensor used for electronic mirrorless cameras, dark current doubles for every few degrees centigrade with most sensors.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

While true, for any critical focus you will disable the optical path and enable liveview. So what is better. A camera designed to run in this mode or an afterthought. Dark current contribution is minimal in a normal exposure. I see it while doing astrophotography. But then critical focus is more important.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Viewfinder lag, battery draw, sensor heating, shutter-release lag. DSLR's have a lot of advantages over EVF's. Higher resolution EVF's means a lot more data to push through the camera. Battery draw and electronic noise. Mirrors in cameras are essentially passive optical devices, no power-draw, no viewfinder lag, and less shutter-lag than mirrorless. I'd like to know the operating temperature of a sensor used for electronic mirrorless cameras, dark current doubles for every few degrees centigrade with most sensors.

According to Sean Reid's latest article here in Lula, the SL is actually quite usable and responsive... as for EVF vs OVF, it boils down to personal taste and habit.

[Bo Dez]

Looking at the specs, the 24-90 is almost f4 at 50mm! That is ridiculous for a $5000 lens! You may as well shoot medium format for that size, spec and price.

This is not a professional spec 35mm system lens, it's an oversized, over priced, slow as hell, amateur spec lens. Given the size of it, it means there will never be a constant 2.8 zoom lens for this system, ever.

Who in their right mind would buy this at over $5000? In professional situations it's only really usable at f4 because if you set up your lighting and exposure for 2.8 and then zoom, you have to change your lights or be a stop under exposed.

There are no other other lenses available at launch. Just this one, expensive, slow, enormous, limited zoom. This is going to flop hard.